Top-Secret NSA Report Details Russian Hacking Effort Days Before 2016 Election

originally posted by: UKTruth
I've now been through the document a few times to try and find any information that would point to Russia hacking any election system. In fact, there is not even any evidence that Russians did anything here, nor is there any evidence that this is anything more than a bog standard spearfishing attack on a server.

Jeez, talk about people jumping off the deep end - I wonder have they even read the document???

Yeah, that's been said from the OP.

Glad you finally caught up.

originally posted by: introvert
Well, this is an interesting development.

The ramifications of this, if it all turns out to be true, are huge.

Lots of egg on a lot of people's faces.

These people will deny they have faces to support the idea of fake news.

originally posted by: UKTruth
I've now been through the document a few times to try and find any information that would point to Russia hacking any election system. In fact, there is not even any evidence that Russians did anything here, nor is there any evidence that this is anything more than a bog standard spearfishing attack on a server.

Jeez, talk about people jumping off the deep end - I wonder have they even read the document???

Shhh don't ruin the fun.

originally posted by: UKTruth
I've now been through the document a few times to try and find any information that would point to Russia hacking any election system. In fact, there is not even any evidence that Russians did anything here, nor is there any evidence that this is anything more than a bog standard spearfishing attack on a server.

Jeez, talk about people jumping off the deep end - I wonder have they even read the document???

The very first word after the NSA header is "Russia".

a reply to: alphabetaone

Feel free to post any Wikileaks releases that have been proven false.
Hadn't you heard that hackers are using the CIA tools since they were released in Vault 7?
Maybe they are real.

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance



It states that ‘It is unknown if the GRU (Russian military intelligence) was able to successfully compromise any of the entities targeted as part of this campaign. While this [redacted] cyber espionage program utilized some techniques that were similar to other Russian GRU cyber operations units, this activity demonstrated several characteristics that distinguish it from another major GRU spear-phishing program known as [redacted].'


Still no evidence russia hacxked the election.

See how I bolded your quote there....if entities can be targeted and potentially compromised, whether or not it was successful is unimportant, it still shows the hack was successful.

a reply to: Liquesence

Sorry, but the NSA would not comment to them,
That would be against the law.

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Liquesence

No proof anywhere the documents even exist.

Sure about that?

Link

Even more sure now than before.

Your "Document" was placed on documentcloud by the Intercept.

They have a good psy-ops going so far.

a reply to: xuenchen

I don't expect you to believe it, unless the NSA handed you a physical copy itself.

Even then....

Carry on.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Didn't Vault 7 speak of a program that can mimic Russian hacking/phishing schemes?

Yes, and there we see the difference between someone that actually has information and those that pretend to... Wikileaks released the documents. Proof that they had them.

CIA 'UMBRAGE' group....right?

#Vault7: How CIA steals hacking fingerprints from Russia & others to cover its tracks

www.rt.com...

Kim Dotcom‏
Verified account @KimDotcom

CIA uses techniques to make cyber attacks look like they originated from enemy state. It turns DNC/Russia hack allegation by CIA into a JOKE

twitter.com... nts%2F

originally posted by: burntheships

a reply to: Liquesence

Sorry, but the NSA would not comment to them,
That would be against the law.

Apparently the NSA asked them not to publish it, which is indicative of authenticity. Furthermore, when the NSA found it would be published, they wanted redactions. Also indicative of authenticity.

Thanks.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: alphabetaone

Feel free to post any Wikileaks releases that have been proven false.
Hadn't you heard that hackers are using the CIA tools since they were released in Vault 7?
Maybe they are real.

Why would I do that? I'm not trying to prove that WikiLeaks has false data, nor did I say they did....my rebuttal is solely against your assertion that WikiLeaks has ONLY valid data, and everything being said here is inaccurate. I honestly don't care much about the veracity of WikiLeaks information.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth
I've now been through the document a few times to try and find any information that would point to Russia hacking any election system. In fact, there is not even any evidence that Russians did anything here, nor is there any evidence that this is anything more than a bog standard spearfishing attack on a server.

Jeez, talk about people jumping off the deep end - I wonder have they even read the document???

The very first word after the NSA header is "Russia".

The NSA saying 'Russia' does not prove anything. They said 'Russia' months ago in the Grizzly Steppe document and initially lied about '17 agencies' blah blah blah, before having to walk it back to 3, with varying confidence. This moves us on not a jot, and we are left waiting for evidence still.

We just got NO new information and people are calling for another election.


From the January report :

Russian intelligence obtained and maintained access to elements of multiple US state or local electoral boards. DHS assesses that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote tallying.

There was no evidence presented following the January accusations either.

Do carry on though.

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: burntheships

a reply to: Liquesence

Sorry, but the NSA would not comment to them,
That would be against the law.

Apparently the NSA asked them not to publish it, which is indicative of authenticity. Furthermore, when the NSA found it would be published, they wanted redactions. Also indicative of authenticity.

Thanks.

The NSA doesn't "Ask" anybody to do anything.

a reply to: Kali74

I've never cast an electronic vote.
Virginia is pen and paper and a scanner that counts the votes it scans and retains the copy I filled out for backup.

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: xuenchen

I don't expect you to believe it, unless the NSA handed you a physical copy itself.

Even then....

Carry on.

I wouldn't believe it if Mike Rogers handed it to me himself.

originally posted by: introvert

The very first word after the NSA header is "Russia".

"Perfect" isn't it.

a reply to: UKTruth

That's all fine and dandy, but this is what you said:

I've now been through the document a few times to try and find any information that would point to Russia hacking any election system.

The first word after the header is "Russia".

Apparently you did not read the first word in the document.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: xuenchen

I don't expect you to believe it, unless the NSA handed you a physical copy itself.

Even then....

Carry on.

I wouldn't believe it if Mike Rogers handed it to me himself.

Nope, probably only if Trump himself said it, or handed it to you.